Setting aside our view that it is usually better not to go to court we fully understand the frustration with the current system captured in the terms of Petition PE1917. It is drawing to the attention of the committee entirely legitimate concerns that deserve Scottish government attention.

First, there is an ‘inequality of arms’ phenomenon when one party has legal aid and the other has not. If one party is funded by the public purse there is a suspicion that there may be advantage, for example, in prolonging correspondence about trivial or non-existent matters or stalling on good faith negotiation that will lead to settlement. This wears down the finances of the non-legally aided party who may incur a substantial fee for every solicitor’s reply. Far more important for the committee to note is that the longer the correspondence can be strung out the more it may damage the relationship of the child with the other parent as a new status quo sets in.

Secondly, we suspect it is not commonly known by legislators unless they have personal experience just how expensive even an average family court case can become, quickly running into tens of thousands of pounds for a non-legally aided party. We have seen costs of £30,000 - £50,000 in cases that raised no great legal issues or safety concerns about either parent. We have also seen more complicated cases topping £100,000.

While it has been a matter of some pride within the Scottish government that we continued to make legal aid available for family cases after it was stopped in England and Wales the cut-off point is not generous in the context of average family law case costs. The marginal cost for a party being a few pounds over the resources threshold can be catastrophic.

The choice for many parents in that situation is to give up, sometimes walking away from their children completely, or to represent themselves as a party litigant.

Our most downloaded user guide is Representing Yourself in Scottish Family Court - Shared Parenting Scotland. In recent monthly meetings up to half of attendees are considering or have already become party litigants.

We are aware of a number of party litigants who have been largely successful though all will admit that running their own case became effectively a full-time preoccupation. We are aware of others who have found it difficult to separate their emotional commitment to the case and to their children from the requirement of the court for evidence to be independently verified.

Our view, expressed separately to the Scottish government and to the Scottish Legal Aid Board and to the Evans Review of Legal Aid is that legal aid can play an important role in supporting alternative, less adversarial routes to helping parents resolve their disagreements after separation or divorce. Parents need support in putting the broad welfare of their children first exactly at the time when they may be least able to do it amid the disruption of their relationship break up.

Our children and their parents really need less court, not more. Parenting should not be means tested. In the meantime, however, fundamental issues of child welfare as well as access to justice have been identified by this petition and we urge the Committee to take them forward.